IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i23p6680-d290920.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Boundary Objects as a Learning Mechanism for Sustainable Development Goals—A Case Study of a Japanese Company in the Chemical Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Wen Pan Fagerlin

    (School of Business Administration, Hitotsubashi University, Kunitachi, Tokyo 186-8601, Japan)

  • Minoru Shimamoto

    (School of Business Administration, Hitotsubashi University, Kunitachi, Tokyo 186-8601, Japan)

  • Ran Li

    (School of Business Administration, Hitotsubashi University, Kunitachi, Tokyo 186-8601, Japan)

Abstract

This paper explores the role of boundary objects in the translation and transformation process of a sustainability concept—Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs)—into a firm’s business practices. The qualitative case study describes the experience where a Japanese company successfully implemented SDGs and generated product innovations through its learning process. The findings of the study identify four types of effective boundary objects: (1) organizational repository boundary objects, including historical contextualization and best practices; (2) a standardized form of boundary objects based on certification process of environmental sustainable products; (3) an ideal type of boundary objects through digital forum based learning platform; (4) a “powerful” community of practices that come across hierarchy and functions. This paper extends the literature by showing the interconnectedness of boundary objects, the possible negative side of technology based boundary objects, and the significance of community of practices as a monitoring and coordination tool to ensure the effective operation and measurement of sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Wen Pan Fagerlin & Minoru Shimamoto & Ran Li, 2019. "Boundary Objects as a Learning Mechanism for Sustainable Development Goals—A Case Study of a Japanese Company in the Chemical Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-26, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:23:p:6680-:d:290920
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/23/6680/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/23/6680/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Constantine Andriopoulos & Marianne W. Lewis, 2009. "Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 696-717, August.
    2. Paul R. Carlile & Eric S. Rebentisch, 2003. "Into the Black Box: The Knowledge Transformation Cycle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1180-1195, September.
    3. Erik G. Hansen & Friedrich Grosse-Dunker & Ralf Reichwald, 2009. "Sustainability Innovation Cube — A Framework To Evaluate Sustainability-Oriented Innovations," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(04), pages 683-713.
    4. Marc Vilanova & Josep Lozano & Daniel Arenas, 2009. "Exploring the Nature of the Relationship Between CSR and Competitiveness," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 57-69, April.
    5. Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 14-37, February.
    6. Joyeeta Gupta & Courtney Vegelin, 2016. "Sustainable development goals and inclusive development," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 433-448, June.
    7. John Seely Brown & Paul Duguid, 2001. "Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 198-213, April.
    8. Deborah Dougherty, 1992. "Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 179-202, May.
    9. Mats Alvesson & Dan Kärreman, 2001. "Odd Couple: Making Sense of the Curious Concept of Knowledge Management," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(7), pages 995-1018, November.
    10. Tobias Hahn & Jonatan Pinkse, 2014. "Private environmental governance through cross-sector partnerships: Tensions between competition and effectiveness," Working Papers hal-00961234, HAL.
    11. Beth A. Bechky, 2003. "Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 312-330, June.
    12. Tobias Hahn & Jonatan Pinkse & Lutz Preuss & Frank Figge, 2015. "Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: Towards an Integrative Framework," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(2), pages 297-316, March.
    13. Abagail McWilliams & Donald Siegel, 2000. "Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(5), pages 603-609, May.
    14. Tobias Hahn & Frank Figge & Jonatan Pinkse & Lutz Preuss, 2010. "Trade‐offs in corporate sustainability: you can't have your cake and eat it," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(4), pages 217-229, May.
    15. Bonifant, Benjamin C. & Arnold, Matthew B. & Long, Frederick J., 1995. "Gaining competitive advantage through environmental investments," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 37-47.
    16. Wokutch, Richard E. & Shepard, Jon M., 1999. "The Maturing of the Japanese Economy: Corporate Social Responsibility Implications," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 527-540, July.
    17. Briers, Michael & Chua, Wai Fong, 2001. "The role of actor-networks and boundary objects in management accounting change: a field study of an implementation of activity-based costing," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 237-269, April.
    18. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    19. Bernd Siebenhüner & Marlen Arnold, 2007. "Organizational learning to manage sustainable development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(5), pages 339-353, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Triantafyllos Papafloratos & Ioannis Markidis & Iordanis Kotzaivazoglou & Garyfallos Fragidis, 2023. "Sustainability Material Topics and Materiality Analysis in the Chemical Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-23, September.
    2. Hanlie Smuts & Alta Van der Merwe, 2022. "Knowledge Management in Society 5.0: A Sustainability Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-27, June.
    3. María Garrido-Ruso & Beatriz Aibar-Guzmán & Albertina Paula Monteiro, 2022. "Businesses’ Role in the Fulfillment of the 2030 Agenda: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-35, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul R. Carlile, 2004. "Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 555-568, October.
    2. Ann Majchrzak & Philip H. B. More & Samer Faraj, 2012. "Transcending Knowledge Differences in Cross-Functional Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 951-970, August.
    3. Esther Tippmann & Pamela Sharkey Scott & Andrew Parker, 2017. "Boundary Capabilities in MNCs: Knowledge Transformation for Creative Solution Development," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 455-482, June.
    4. Haselsteiner, Julia, 2022. "Unraveling the Process of Knowledge Integration in Agile Product Development Teams," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 7(2), pages 354-389.
    5. Torsten Ringberg & Markus Reihlen, 2008. "Towards a Socio‐Cognitive Approach to Knowledge Transfer," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(5), pages 912-935, July.
    6. Johann Piet Hausberg & Peter S. H. Leeflang, 2019. "Absorbing Integration: Empirical Evidence On The Mediating Role Of Absorptive Capacity Between Functional-/Cross-Functional Integration And Innovation Performance," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(06), pages 1-37, August.
    7. Ferguson, J.E. & Huysman, M.H., 2009. "Between ambition and approach: towards sustainable knowledge management in development organizations," Serie Research Memoranda 0003, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    8. Ferlie, Ewan & Crilly, Tessa & Jashapara, Ashok & Peckham, Anna, 2012. "Knowledge mobilisation in healthcare: A critical review of health sector and generic management literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(8), pages 1297-1304.
    9. Cacciatori, Eugenia, 2008. "Memory objects in project environments: Storing, retrieving and adapting learning in project-based firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1591-1601, October.
    10. Hilda Bø Lyng & Eric Christian Brun, 2020. "Innovating with Strangers; Managing Knowledge Barriers Across Distances in Cross-Industry Innovation," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(01), pages 1-33, February.
    11. Lantto, Anna-Maija, 2022. "Obtaining entity-specific information and dealing with uncertainty: Financial accountants' response to their changing work of financial reporting and the role of boundary objects," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    12. Guo, Jingjing & Guo, Bin & Zhou, Jianghua & Wu, Xiaobo, 2020. "How does the ambidexterity of technological learning routine affect firm innovation performance within industrial clusters? The moderating effects of knowledge attributes," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    13. Tobias Hahn & Frank Figge & Jonatan Pinkse & Lutz Preuss, 2018. "A Paradox Perspective on Corporate Sustainability: Descriptive, Instrumental, and Normative Aspects," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 235-248, March.
    14. Karimikia, Hadi & Bradshaw, Robert & Singh, Harminder & Ojo, Adegboyega & Donnellan, Brian & Guerin, Michael, 2022. "An emergent taxonomy of boundary spanning in the smart city context – The case of smart Dublin," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    15. Caccamo, Marta & Pittino, Daniel & Tell, Fredrik, 2023. "Boundary objects, knowledge integration, and innovation management: A systematic review of the literature," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    16. Claudio Biscaro & Anna Comacchio, 2018. "Knowledge Creation Across Worldviews: How Metaphors Impact and Orient Group Creativity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 289(1), pages 58-79, February.
    17. Gantman, Sonia & Fedorowicz, Jane, 2016. "Communication and control in outsourced IS development projects: Mapping to COBIT domains," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 63-83.
    18. Johannes S. Schwarz & Christine Legner, 2020. "Business model tools at the boundary: exploring communities of practice and knowledge boundaries in business model innovation," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(3), pages 421-445, September.
    19. Pier Vittorio Mannucci, 2017. "Drawing Snow White and Animating Buzz Lightyear: Technological Toolkit Characteristics and Creativity in Cross-Disciplinary Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 711-728, August.
    20. Davide Nicolini & Jeanne Mengis & Jacky Swan, 2012. "Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 612-629, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:23:p:6680-:d:290920. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.